Headlines

Politico

“Why does anybody need a … 30-round clip for a gun?”

“I grew up in this hunting culture, but this is nuts,” said the Southern-born former president, as he spoke at the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The speech was recorded by the Associated Press.

“Why does anybody need a … 30-round clip for a gun?” said Clinton, who in 1994 signed the assault weapons ban into law. It lapsed a decade later.

“Why does anybody need one of those things that carries 100 bullets? The guy in Colorado had one of those,” said Clinton, referring to the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., last year. “Half of all mass killings in the U.S. occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

As a defense of “suppose a student overtakes a teacher and steals her gun”. So I guess we then need to believe any student who finds a gun in their hand will immediately start shooting other defenseless students.

But the ones that choose areas where concealed carry is available never have the time (20 minutes at Sandy Hook) to build up a body count that warrents National Coverage.

Like the Portland Mall shooter, 2 dead before armed citizen stopped him or San Antonio theater where armed citizen (off duty cop, but not a gun fee zone so she had it with her) shot him down before he even killed one.

But the ones that choose areas where concealed carry is available never have the time (20 minutes at Sandy Hook) to build up a body count that warrents National Coverage.

Like the Portland Mall shooter, 2 dead before armed citizen stopped him or San Antonio theater where armed citizen (off duty cop, but not a gun fee zone so she had it with her) shot him down before he even killed one.

jaydee_007 on January 10, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Good point. I guess the ones with very high body counts are the ones we hear about all the time, and those tend to be where there is no resistance.

I guess the ones with very high body counts are the ones we hear about all the time, and those tend to be where there is no resistance.

This is a fallacy on which a lot of gun control is based. They have no evidence of gun owners stopping crime because there is no police record when a crime isn’t committed, therefore they conclude that taking guns away has no downside.

In the 22 years before enactment of ‘gun free school zones’ there were two mass school shootings.
In the 22 years since enactment of ‘gun free schools’ there have been 10 mass school shootings.
Not only has the bill utterly failed to protect our children it appears to have placed them in danger,”
…Congressman Steve Stockman

This is a fallacy on which a lot of gun control is based. They have no evidence of gun owners stopping crime because there is no police record when a crime isn’t committed, therefore they conclude that taking guns away has no downside.

Socratease on January 10, 2013 at 4:38 PM

All we can do is compare the greater prevalence of home invasion in Britain with strict gun control, to the US where it is less common. It’s the dog that didn’t bark problem and leftists aren’t exactly Sherlock Holmes.

This is a fallacy on which a lot of gun control is based. They have no evidence of gun owners stopping crime because there is no police record when a crime isn’t committed, therefore they conclude that taking guns away has no downside.

Socratease on January 10, 2013 at 4:38 PM

And mose civilians won’t report a ‘Prevented’ crime because they don’t want their firearm impounded plus the 14 miles of Red Tape they will open themselves up to.

The government has no authority to interfere, any more than it has any authority to stop me from buying http://ky-wildcat.com putting WordPress on it, and posting 80′s song videos in between political
rants.

teachers get assaulted all the time! many dont have a single skill of self defense…
nathor on January 10, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Ok, I’d be willing to pick up the tab for self defense training for any teacher who wants to carry. If a teacher has a classroom with a student as violent as you suggest, I wouldn’t dream of forcing him to be defenseless. Too bad liberals can’t say the same.

He killed 3 people. See, when you say “mass shooting” (with all the hysteria attendant thereto) it tends to make people think more in the double digits. Now, I’m not saying this doesn’t count against this guy as a multiple homicide, but “mass shooting” is probably a little hyperbolic.

Ddid someone on here suggest that all teachers had to be armed? And, without any training, whatsoever? Because that’s the only way nathor’s comments even come close to making any sense.

GWB on January 10, 2013 at 4:45 PM

No. Just classic leftist strawman tactic. They cannot function without the strawman. Which makes you wonder: since they’ve always got their strawman with them, do Democrats get to ride in the carpool/HOV lane whenever they want?

No. Just classic leftist strawman tactic. They cannot function without the strawman. Which makes you wonder: since they’ve always got their strawman with them, do Democrats get to ride in the carpool/HOV lane whenever they want?

besser tot als rot on January 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM

if there is not enough time between shootings for the public opinion to forget the issue, you will see opinion change very fast…

This is a fallacy on which a lot of gun control is based. They have no evidence of gun owners stopping crime because there is no police record when a crime isn’t committed, therefore they conclude that taking guns away has no downside.

Socratease on January 10, 2013 at 4:38 PM

It reminds me of the story of the engineer during WWII that was asked to figure out a way to make the fighter planes better.

They had all sorts of planes that had survived dog fights and limped home for him to examine.

When he was done looking at the planes, he came out and surprised everyone by recommending that they add armor in all of the places that hadn’t been shot.

He then explained that these planes were shot in places that left them still able to fly home so those weren’t the critical areas to protect.

If you only look at the what occurs in mass killings with high body counts and you ignore the attempted mass killings where someone put a stop to it before the body counts got high, you end up biasing your results and do yourself no good in trying to come up with a solution.

If you only look at the what occurs in mass killings with high body counts and you ignore the attempted mass killings where someone put a stop to it before the body counts got high, you end up biasing your results and do yourself no good in trying to come up with a solution.

JadeNYU on January 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Nice story. Good luck explaining that rationale to people that have never been taught to think critically or rationally in our government schools.

I know, let’s all go over to HuffPo and ask the Taboo Question of the Century there…

Why does any woman NEED a third trimester abortion?

I mean, there are more than enough willing couples out there who would adopt the baby.
And if you can’t decide in the first six months that you are unable to care for the child then how can we be sure you’ve made a sound decision in the last three months.

Not to mention that the Birth Canal issue is moot, especially with partial birth abortion, regarding a third trimester abortion.

Watch how they react to that.

And do so keeping in mind that abortion is a derived right by twisting the fourth and fifth amendments while keeping and bearing arms is an explicit right guaranteed directly by the second.

“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer….

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

“Without minimizing the pain and suffering of the hundreds…who have been victimized in senseless attacks, the facts say clearly that [there] has been no increase in mass killings,” Fox wrote. When clusters of incidents occur close together, he added, that likely reflects a mixture of copycatting and coincidence.

In 2012, the number of deaths from mass shootings was reportedly 68, which is actually less than Fox’s figure for 2010. It is the total number of casualties — dead and injured combined — that appears to be higher than usual.

After Newtown, Fox wrote a column wherein he stated:

“if it seems like these dreadful crimes are occurring more frequently, it is really the immediacy and pervasiveness of media coverage that creates the impression. And thanks to state-of-the-art technology, it can feel as though the tragedy happened in your own backyard.”

Duwe has addressed the media coverage too:

“…pointing out in a 2005 paper that mass murders in the 1920s and ’30s were more likely to take place within families or during the commission of another felony. These are not the kinds of killings that tend to attract a high level of press attention.”